https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769574 ITAT Lucknow ruled that while CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without giving AO an opportunity to consider it, this violation did not materially impact the case outcome. The tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of long-term capital gains addition, finding that the firm could not be taxed on gains from land that belonged to a partner rather than the firm itself. Only gains from building structure and plant machinery owned by the firm were taxable. The tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal on the relief granted but upheld appeals regarding Rule 46A violation. Assessment reopening was held valid as AO had sufficient reason to believe income escaped assessment. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769574 ITAT Lucknow ruled that while CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without giving AO an opportunity to consider it, this violation did not materially impact the case outcome. The tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of long-term capital gains addition, finding that the firm could not be taxed on gains from land that belonged to a partner rather than the firm itself. Only gains from building structure and plant machinery owned by the firm were taxable. The tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal on the relief granted but upheld appeals regarding Rule 46A violation. Assessment reopening was held valid as AO had sufficient reason to believe income escaped assessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769574